Jump to content

Welcome to Obsidian Forum Community
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Engagement Mechanics- Problems and Solutions

Engagement

  • Please log in to reply
305 replies to this topic

#61
Shevek

Shevek

    (8) Warlock

  • Members
  • 1164 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
I am curious how far AI can go in curbing some of those issues.

#62
serenityangel

serenityangel

    (1) Prestidigitator

  • Members
  • 17 posts
  • Steam:serenatyangel
  • Deadfire Silver Backer
  • Fig Backer

I like engagement in theory,but wonder if it can be simulated well in practice.  I would be afraid the code for it might be too complex. I feel it is neccessary to let melee frontlines like fighters and paladins the capability to hold and command ground around them, a battle space if you prefer.  The problem is how the game treats disengagement and worry that not only is it too harsh, but too inflexible.   If I understand, if you move one pixel after in engagement then you'd be subject to an attack of opportunity which would be wrong.

 

I propose engagement be judged by weapon range.  The idea is that the battle space around a combatant is the radius distance of his weapon's reach and the melee fighter commands any that trespasses into it, if he has enough engagement capability then he can snag things entering it.  (So a fighter with a large reach weapon like a halberd can easily pick up bad guys).   Now, once inside and engaged ideailly the combatants can move around as long as neither leave each other's melee reach.  If one or other does so, then an attack of opportunity ensues before disengaged.  Only one attack per person per say 10 seconds should be done before you could try to reengage.  (So a thief with daggers and a small combat radius enters a fighter with halberd, that thief can move within the fighter's battle sphere, even easily flanking him but if he were to attempt to leave without use of special ability, feat, talent, whatever would incur an attack.   Consequently the fighter if being engaged by the thief has little room to move around for the theif's battle sphere is very small and so the fighter is pretty much locked into the fight.)

 

I think the Attack of opportunity is too harsh, incurring criticals too easily.  In fact, I believe that it should just be a normal unaltered attack, unless this attack were made by a rogue who should get sneak attack.  I think rogues and barbarians should get a talent or have the capability to either have increased deflection to all disengagement attacks or something to let them be more mobile in field.  Currently everyone has a base engagement of 1 target, I'd wish all melees (monks,barbs,chanters,paladins,fighters,rogues) have a base engagemtnt of 2 and ofcourse fighters have that skill that pumps it up more and anyone can get hold the lines if want to to make it even more.  

 

As for a UI, only need to know who is selected with light blue selection circle, their battlesphere reach, and all those engaged with it maybe with darker selection circles.  I'd not need arrows, no need anything fancy or cluttered.  I'd be smart enough knowing who am attacking and would select a target again to make sure if I didn't..all of which would only be seen while paused in combat.  When not paused, there's no need to draw the battlesphere of the selected unit.

 

I don't have any faith in AI scripts, at all.  I don't think engagement issues can be solved through it.  The only enemy script that I'd like to see is a smarter target reacquisition script.

 

So sumamry: Engagements are based on battlespheres that combatants range are varied by weapon reach.  The price of disengagement is not overly harsh but do incur attacks of opportunity when exiting an enemy's battlesphere.  Use only a simplified UI available in combat pause and keep it simple.  Don't bog down combat with heavy AI scripts because AI is too dumb anyway.

 

That's how I'd do engagement, but dunno if the mechanic could be coded and implemented well...if it couldn't..I'd ditch it all together.


Edited by serenityangel, 27 November 2014 - 09:52 PM.

  • Karkarov likes this

#63
Sensuki

Sensuki

    Subway Apathist of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 9965 posts
  • Location:Australia
  • Steam:STEAM_0:1:1229809
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
What are you talking about guys? Engagement works exactly as intended, nothing to see here.

#64
Hormalakh

Hormalakh

    Lone Locust of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 1981 posts
It's now more clear than ever that they are wasting more time and energy on UI, mechanics, AI on a poorly thought out design that does not work as hoped. It's time to kill the beast and turn our energies to more fruitful discussions. I think killing engagement will make the Poe combat much more fun and interesting.

#65
Shevek

Shevek

    (8) Warlock

  • Members
  • 1164 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
Combat is feeling pretty good. Many posts acknowledge this. I just dont see the wisdom in ripping out mechanics when the system is playing well.

#66
Hormalakh

Hormalakh

    Lone Locust of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 1981 posts
Go away, yes-man. If you like this implementation, you aren't in the right thread. This is about problems with engagement.

It's not my problem that your play style is not creative enough to expose a clearly broken system.

Go away.

Edited by Hormalakh, 28 November 2014 - 07:54 AM.

  • Seari and Sif like this

#67
Trodat

Trodat

    (2) Evoker

  • Members
  • 56 posts
  • Location:Finland
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer

It's now more clear than ever that they are wasting more time and energy on UI, mechanics, AI on a poorly thought out design that does not work as hoped. It's time to kill the beast and turn our energies to more fruitful discussions. I think killing engagement will make the Poe combat much more fun and interesting.

I agree. It's pretty much unplayable right now IMO.


  • prodigydancer likes this

#68
Shevek

Shevek

    (8) Warlock

  • Members
  • 1164 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
Lol

#69
Sensuki

Sensuki

    Subway Apathist of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 9965 posts
  • Location:Australia
  • Steam:STEAM_0:1:1229809
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
Haha that's a good one - yes-man. I'm going to use that.

#70
Seari

Seari

    (5) Thaumaturgist

  • Members
  • 417 posts

I retract my previous statement - engagement needs to die in a fire.


  • prodigydancer likes this

#71
Namutree

Namutree

    Compulsive Double Poster of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 1711 posts
  • Location:Michigan
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer

Guys! If you want to talk about removing engagement please do so on another thread. We all know there isn't a snowballs chance in hell it's going to get cut at this point. I agree that engagement is bad, but I'd rather discuss how to make it better than discuss how wonderful life would have been without it. 

 

Problem for me is; I don't have any good ideas on the matter.:(


Edited by Namutree, 28 November 2014 - 09:59 AM.

  • Karkarov, Doppelschwert, Cluas and 2 others like this

#72
Sensuki

Sensuki

    Subway Apathist of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 9965 posts
  • Location:Australia
  • Steam:STEAM_0:1:1229809
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
Removing it is a solution. I appreciate your support on most matters, but I will not budge or back down from my opinion on Engagement and I will not be silent about it and I ask anyone else who also wants it removed to add your voice to mine. Being silent about it is not going to produce results.
  • Seari and prodigydancer like this

#73
Namutree

Namutree

    Compulsive Double Poster of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 1711 posts
  • Location:Michigan
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer

Removing it is a solution. I appreciate your support on most matters, but I will not budge or back down from my opinion on Engagement and I will not be silent about it and I ask anyone else who also wants it removed to add your voice to mine. Being silent about it is not going to produce results.

If you start a thread about it I'll be happy to discuss it there.


  • Sir Newbie likes this

#74
Sensuki

Sensuki

    Subway Apathist of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 9965 posts
  • Location:Australia
  • Steam:STEAM_0:1:1229809
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
I will be, but I need time to formulate a proper argument.
  • Namutree likes this

#75
Namutree

Namutree

    Compulsive Double Poster of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 1711 posts
  • Location:Michigan
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer

I will be, but I need time to formulate a proper argument.

Got it. Please try to keep fecal matter out of the discussion though; it just makes conversation toxic.


Edited by Namutree, 28 November 2014 - 10:37 AM.

  • Doppelschwert and Sir Newbie like this

#76
Sabotin

Sabotin

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 365 posts
  • Location:Slovenia

An Idea I've been juggling around my head:

 

Make melee equipped characters/monsters emanate an aura with a heavy slow effect instead of the soft-lock thing that there is now. The area depends on the range of the melee weapon and simulates this threat area existing now. Only affects enemies (relative to the melee equipped person). The slow effect doesn't stack with engagement areas from other characters (i.e. no double strength slow if you have 2 enemies engaging you)

 

Once you're caught you can walk away slowly (obviously only works if you're not being followed by the other character). If you have a skill that disengages you, you can use that and be moved outisde that particular engagement area or made immune to the slow. Every character would also have an options to force disengage (like the attack/cancel/talk to/guard buttons of IE games), which would function similarly as the aformentioned skills either moving you or making you ignore the slow for a second or two, but provoking a disengagement attack.

 

The attack is not provoked if there's multiple characters inside the same engagement area unless the engager has appropriate feats/abilities. The player can't be sure how many  caharacters need to be in the engagement area to not provoke a disengagement attack when force disengaging.

 

When you are inside multiple engagement areas you provoke a disengagement attack from all of them.

 

Reach weapons generate a larger engagement area, meaning you can engage people from further away, but also meaning that when fighting a non-reach weapon you can hit them before they get close enough to hit you (due to them being slowed from further away).


  • ISC likes this

#77
Sensuki

Sensuki

    Subway Apathist of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 9965 posts
  • Location:Australia
  • Steam:STEAM_0:1:1229809
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
You're referring to something like a "melee shuffle". In and of itself it's not a bad concept, but it would definitely not constitute an Infinity Engine feel, and thus I will not support it.

#78
ISC

ISC

    (3) Conjurer

  • Members
  • 181 posts
  • Location:Sweden

An Idea I've been juggling around my head:

 

Make melee equipped characters/monsters emanate an aura with a heavy slow effect instead of the soft-lock thing that there is now. The area depends on the range of the melee weapon and simulates this threat area existing now. Only affects enemies (relative to the melee equipped person). The slow effect doesn't stack with engagement areas from other characters (i.e. no double strength slow if you have 2 enemies engaging you)

 

Once you're caught you can walk away slowly (obviously only works if you're not being followed by the other character). If you have a skill that disengages you, you can use that and be moved outisde that particular engagement area or made immune to the slow. Every character would also have an options to force disengage (like the attack/cancel/talk to/guard buttons of IE games), which would function similarly as the aformentioned skills either moving you or making you ignore the slow for a second or two, but provoking a disengagement attack.

 

The attack is not provoked if there's multiple characters inside the same engagement area unless the engager has appropriate feats/abilities. The player can't be sure how many  caharacters need to be in the engagement area to not provoke a disengagement attack when force disengaging.

 

When you are inside multiple engagement areas you provoke a disengagement attack from all of them.

 

Reach weapons generate a larger engagement area, meaning you can engage people from further away, but also meaning that when fighting a non-reach weapon you can hit them before they get close enough to hit you (due to them being slowed from further away).

 

This is actually a pretty good idea. I'd skip the whole force-disengage for everyone, and the disengagement attack, however. I think that adds unnecessary complexity, concepts and artificial mechanisms. I mean, if you have absolutely no talent, class or otherwise, for disengaging a swordsman, you will not be able to escape him easily. And by not having a disengagement attack the swordsman would not get two free (artificial) attacks in the middle of a normal attack when two targets try to move away from him. Instead he would have to chose if he would like to pursuit target A or B for "free" hits, or pursuit A while B is still hitting him etc.

 

Its kind of imperfect, but its a simple way to give fighters some control of the battlefield, to be able to block corridors, scare squishy rogues from coming to close etc, while maintaining the usefulness of disengage talents.



#79
Answermancer

Answermancer

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 284 posts
  • Location:Seattle, WA
  • Xbox Gamertag:Answermancer
  • Pillars of Eternity Gold Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Lords of the Eastern Reach Backer
  • Deadfire Silver Backer
  • Fig Backer

An Idea I've been juggling around my head:

 

Make melee equipped characters/monsters emanate an aura with a heavy slow effect instead of the soft-lock thing that there is now. The area depends on the range of the melee weapon and simulates this threat area existing now. Only affects enemies (relative to the melee equipped person). The slow effect doesn't stack with engagement areas from other characters (i.e. no double strength slow if you have 2 enemies engaging you)

 

Once you're caught you can walk away slowly (obviously only works if you're not being followed by the other character). If you have a skill that disengages you, you can use that and be moved outisde that particular engagement area or made immune to the slow. Every character would also have an options to force disengage (like the attack/cancel/talk to/guard buttons of IE games), which would function similarly as the aformentioned skills either moving you or making you ignore the slow for a second or two, but provoking a disengagement attack.

 

The attack is not provoked if there's multiple characters inside the same engagement area unless the engager has appropriate feats/abilities. The player can't be sure how many  caharacters need to be in the engagement area to not provoke a disengagement attack when force disengaging.

 

When you are inside multiple engagement areas you provoke a disengagement attack from all of them.

 

Reach weapons generate a larger engagement area, meaning you can engage people from further away, but also meaning that when fighting a non-reach weapon you can hit them before they get close enough to hit you (due to them being slowed from further away).

 

This is similar to what I've been thinking while lurkishly reading all the drama about engagement. but I think you could get rid of the attack entirely and just slow the movement of engaged enemies. Personally I like engagement as a goal, and I was happy to see the idea in the game, but I do agree that there are issues with it presently.

 

Ultimately I've been thinking that it should work more like zones of control in turn/tile-based games, meaning it stops/slows movement without the free invisible attack aspect. I honestly don't think we need free engagement attacks, I think that "tank" characters should emanate an area that seriously slows the movement of engaged enemies unless they use a "disengagement" ability. The area (and magnitude of the slow) could be affected by weapon reach and talents.

 

At that point the tank can prioritize who to actually attack if they try to get out of the engagement, and can also reliably land CC abilities like knockdowns and the like.

 

I'm not a huge fan of removing engagement altogether and relying entirely on CC abilities (as Sensuki advocates) but mostly just because of two reasons:

1. With recovery times, I think it requires too much micromanagement and luck to get a CC ability off at just the right time. In other words if there are enemies rushing past my "tank" I don't want to have to micromanage exactly what he's doing (making sure he's not in recovery at that moment) to get a CC ability off at just the right time. That just seems tedious to me, especially if there are multiple enemies. A slowing aura makes this much more manageable.
2. I'm worried that "boss"-type monsters will be able to ignore/shrug off CC and I don't think they should be immune to "engagement" of some sort unless that's a specific thing about that boss.


  • Karkarov and ISC like this

#80
Sensuki

Sensuki

    Subway Apathist of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 9965 posts
  • Location:Australia
  • Steam:STEAM_0:1:1229809
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

Ultimately I've been thinking that it should work more like zones of control in turn/tile-based games


This isn't a turn-based game. That is the entire problem with the mechanic. It's a product of turn-based design in the first place.

I'm not a huge fan of removing engagement altogether and relying entirely on CC abilities (as Sensuki advocates) but mostly just because of two reasons:
1. With recovery times, I think it requires too much micromanagement and luck to get a CC ability off at just the right time. In other words if there are enemies rushing past my "tank" I don't want to have to micromanage exactly what he's doing (making sure he's not in recovery at that moment) to get a CC ability off at just the right time. That just seems tedious to me, especially if there are multiple enemies. A slowing aura makes this much more manageable.


I don't know why this is so hard to understand, but as a player, using CC to control enemies will not be necessary if the AI targeting clauses were adjusted so that melee enemies turned to attack your units when you attack them in melee or something like that. If your problem is that you struggle to manipulate enemy targeting, a combination of positioning and understanding AI targeting will solve this problem completely.


2. I'm worried that "boss"-type monsters will be able to ignore/shrug off CC and I don't think they should be immune to "engagement" of some sort unless that's a specific thing about that boss.


There are no absolute immunities in PE, you will be able to Hobble a dragon.

Edited by Sensuki, 28 November 2014 - 01:38 PM.






Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Engagement

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users